IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.
Rajaram & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Dy. Director Of Consolidation Sultanpur & Ors. – Respondents
Consolidation No. - 20192 of 2021
Decided On : 14-9-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. counsel representation and procedural notice. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. overview of previous legal proceedings. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's reasoning on jurisdiction and remand. (Para 5 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. maintainability of surya narayan's appeal. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. dismissal of the writ petition and directives. (Para 10 , 11) |
JUDGMENT :
Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.
1. Heard Shrii Vijai Bahadur Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Arya Shreshtha Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the opposite party No. 1.
2. For the order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to other private parties is dispensed with.
3. This petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 27.09.2012 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Amethi Camp, Sultanpur in Appeal No. 72/ 363, under Rule 109-A(3) of U.P. Consolidation of Holding Rules, 1954, and the order dated 27.03.2021 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur in Revision Nos. 2238/267, 2240/1174, 2241/ 1175, under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.
4. In the proceedings under Section 109A(3) the Consolidation Officer passed the order dated 11.04.1991, against which one Surya Narayan, who had purchased some part of New Gata No. 199/2-1-8 from Rajendra Bahadur Singh, filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, which was allowed vide order dated 07.03.2001 and the matter was remanded to the Consolidation Officer for fresh decision. Three revisions were filed. One by petitioners and two by others, which were dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 18.12.2001, against the order dated 18.12.2001, Writ Petition No. 142 (Cons.) of 2002 was filed before this Court by the petitioners, which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 11.03.2002 with the observation that no interference in the orders dated 07.3.2001 and 18.12.2001 was required. This Court provided that since the matter had been remanded to the Settlement Officer Consolidation, he would look into the matter and see that the land which has been transferred by Rajendra Bahadur Singh, has been allotted to the petitioner and in place thereof Rajendra Bahadur Singh has been allotted some other piece of land. It was provided that the Settlement Officer Consolidation will also see feasibility of accommodating the person in whose favour the title of the land has been transferred by Rajendra Bahadur Singh through the sale deed and the appropriate orders shall be passed by him. The order dated 11.03.2002 passed in Writ Petition No. 142 (Cons.) of 2002 is being reproduced as under:
This writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 18.12.2001 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur in Revision Nos.270/1356, 271/1357 and 1113 by which the order dated 7.3.2001 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Sultanpur in Appeal No. 72 (Surya Narain Vs. Rajendra Bahadur Singh and others) has been upheld. The case was remanded to the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the order of the Consolidation Officer was set aside on the ground that Rajendra Bahadur Singh had executed a sale deed in favour of opposite party No. 4, namely, Surya Narain who transferred his title from the land in respect of Gata No. 199 situate at village Randauli, Pargana Barausa, Tehsil-Sadar, District Sultanpur.
The plea raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the Gata which had been transferred by Rajendra Bahadur Singh was not, in fact his land but other land was allotted to the petitioner and Rajendra Bahadur Singh was allotted some other Gata.
Since the matter had been remanded to the Settlement Officer Consolidation Officer concerned, he will look into the matter and see that the land which has been transferred by Rajendra Bahadur Singh, has been allotted to the petitioner and in place thereof Rajendra Bahadur Singh has been allotted some other piece of land. He will al
It is well known that "conclusions" and "reasons" are two different things and reasons must show mental exercise of authorities in arriving at a particular conclusion. In Union of India v. Mohan Lal ....
The Deputy Director of Consolidation's remand for a fresh hearing was justified to ensure fairness, given the significant delay and procedural irregularities in prior decisions.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation must adhere to remand orders and consider all relevant records and admissions before making decisions regarding co-tenancy rights.
Judicial orders must be made with integrity and transparency, and any manipulation or procedural irregularity undermines the validity of such orders.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation has the authority to decide appeals on their merits rather than remanding to subordinate authorities, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive review under Sectio....
The court affirmed the principle that title objections must be decided on merit rather than based on previous compromises, ensuring fair opportunity for parties to present evidence.
The court ruled that title objections under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act must be decided on merit, emphasizing the need for proper jurisdiction and evidence rather than relying on alleged c....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.